BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Gilbert M'Micken v Hugh M'Ilwraith. [1785] Hailes 970 (23 June 1785) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1785/Hailes020970-0636.html Cite as: [1785] Hailes 970 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1785] Hailes 970
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 WRIT.
Subject_3 Signing by initials not valid, no witnesses being present, where the party is ignorant of writing.
Date: Gilbert M'Micken
v.
Hugh M'Ilwraith
23 June 1785 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 333; Dictionary, 16,820.]
Justice-Clerk. The woman is said to have divested herself of her all by indorsing a bill with her initials. The indorsation might have been granted for a different cause, in order to enable her to claim amongst creditors.
Eskgrove. There is no circumstance to support the credibility or the verity of the subscription.
Monboddo. An indorsation by initials is good, if the party be wont to sign by initials: the bill is in the possession of the defender; that circumstance presumes property. I would allow a proof that the woman was wont to sign by initials, and of her having said that she had given the bill to the defender.
Gardenston. This is not a transaction of the nature of an indorsation; it is a gift.
President. Initials are no proper subscription; they are not probative in law: when the practice of signing by initials is clearly proved, then there may be proof of actual signing before witnesses. Here there is a transmission of property, a donation not in re mercatoria.
Braxfield. Proof of subscribing by initials is not sufficient to support deeds. In deeds of importance, a party must sign, or notaries must sign for him. There is an exception as to what happens in re mercatoria. Still the deed, even in such a case, must be supported by extraneous proof.
On the 23d June 1785, “The Lords, in respect the defenders acknowledge that they cannot prove that the deceased Elizabeth M‘Harg did actually adhibit her subscription by initials to the bill in question, sustained the objections stated by the pursuer against the validity of the said indorsation; and found that the defenders are accountable for the contents of the said bill;” adhering to the interlocutor of Lord Braxfield.
Act. Ch. Hay. Alt. A. M‘Connochie. Diss. Monboddo.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
